Its hard to argue the importance of location, location, location so to an extent I'd have to say good photography = travel. Some places simply have jaw dropping locations that are made for photography. I just finished posting in the Arizona forum on here and thats a perfect location example that is hard to beat.

There is a natural tendency to think exotic locations will yield great photos. And to some extent exotic locations do stimulate the photographer and get his or her creative juices flowing, so to speak.

So do you need to fly half way around the world to be a good photographer? No, think for a moment. There are perhaps hundreds of people with Nikon DSLRs already living near that exotic location. To them the location is just the normal scenery found near home. To them your location may be exotic. If you can take great photos of their local area then you can also take great photos of your local area. You don't have to travel. There is nothing wrong with travel. It just was not necessary for Ansel Adams and it is not necessary for any of us.

Of course, those people who have clients willing to pay for them to travel half way around the world to take photos are very lucky.

Gosh, my 2010 motorhome has 28,000 miles on it. So, I guess I do travel a bit. But the idea of a being a good photographer requires this? mmmm... I like to shoot people. And i think the key to this is the communication between the photographer and the subject. This is far more than the superficial relationship, but, in my opinion has to do with the unconscious attitude of the graphic artist, which is sort of what we are. How we manage our relationships with everyone can be seen in some of our photos. As an example, if I am shooting a portrait, I might spend 30 minutes or an hour talking to the client prior to turning the camera on. I might play with the camera when talking to the client, show it to them, slowly bring the camera into the conversation. It then becomes part of me. This is a technique I like to make the bond between a subject and photographer.
I must admit, I did practice psychiatry for many years, so this talking stuff is fairly easy for me. But, my suspicion is that when one studies the great photographers one will discover it is the attitude which was a very important part of their overall makeup which contributed to the final product. Read my website on my profile to learn about attitude. Almost 800 pages of it.

Taking most of my pictures on airfields or during air shows, I do have to travel. Sometimes a few miles to a local one is enough, sometimes thousands of miles to go to good old USA for example (My favorite ! :o)

adamz said:
Will agre with Treckie. You can be a good photographer and stay in one place, but that's a niche. If You want to follow the rules, You have to adjust to clients. Moreover, as someone who likes to shoot animals, I need to move from one place to another. How many tigers can You shoot anyway :)

If you want landscaped then most likely you have to travel some. I obviously can't take any great mountain photos here in Indiana, but I have plenty of nice corn fields and trees. It really depends heavily on your type of photography and where you live. If you want to take city pictures and don't live by one then you have a problem. Likewise with some of the landscape photos. I think people pictures can be done anywhere. I think macro work can be done anywhere.

More then traveling in most cases is having an eye for the photo IMO. I took my best photo walking a quarter mile from my house.

Will agre with Treckie. You can be a good photographer and stay in one place, but that's a niche. If You want to follow the rules, You have to adjust to clients. Moreover, as someone who likes to shoot animals, I need to move from one place to another. How many tigers can You shoot anyway :)
So, good photographer doesn't necessary = a lot of traveling, but traveling helps a lot when You are a good photographer :)

There's nothing more breathtaking than a great photo of a beautiful landscape (either exotic or just plainly beautiful). Yet being able to capture an ordinary object of everyday life in a special manner (leaving the "oh, I walked by it everyday and never seen it" feeling) is imo much more valuable..:)

I believe that being a good photographer naturally opens doors to travel. The client paying for your services requires you to shoot where their event is happening. You may start by shooting in your back yard but as your work and talents are recognized your circle of influence grows and before you know it you're shooting for National Geographic or something similar.I also think our places and things to photograph checklist creates a need for us to travel. You can be a great photographer and never leave the house, but I think that is a minority of people. Likewise, if you are a "crappy photographer" and you travel a lot, then you have a lot of images no one is interested in.

aslightdelay said:
I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, it seems like the photographers who get the attention (in many cases) are those who go farther afield for their shots, so maybe some travel is in order.

On the other, take a look at some of the stuff that graces the Photo a Day thread here. Are, say, Abhinav's or Regulator's photos any less good because they're shot (I'm assuming) relatively close to home? Or some of the shots -- by Studio460, if I remember correctly -- that were a mockup of an aircraft interior done in his living room?

Call me a silly bastard, but I think if you took a crappy photographer from Podunk and plunked him down in Venice, he'd still take crappy photos. If, on the other hand, you have a phenomenal photographer who happens to be agoraphobic, dollars to doughnuts she's going to find some cool way to represent the stuff in her living room. :)

But, playing Devil's advocate for a minute, how far is far enough? Speaking for myself, I've found that a quick drive down the Turnpike, or into New York, can be enough to get the creative juices going if I'm getting a bit worn out by my usual haunts. Would I give my eye teeth to shoot in Dublin, Kyoto, or Buenos Aires? Sure. But part of the challenge, and the fun, of this -- at least for me -- is trying to see the same things I see day in and day out from a bit different perspective.

I agree, especially with the third paragraph.

And speaking of trying to get the creative juices flowing, there's a website called The Daily Shoot which is pretty cool. They give an assignment for each day and try to get you to take a new photo for that assignment, not trying to find an old one sitting on your computer that fits. It's kind of like the "Photo a Day" thread, just with assignments. (no, I'm not associated with that website in any way, I just think it's a fun idea).

I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, it seems like the photographers who get the attention (in many cases) are those who go farther afield for their shots, so maybe some travel is in order.

On the other, take a look at some of the stuff that graces the Photo a Day thread here. Are, say, Abhinav's or Regulator's photos any less good because they're shot (I'm assuming) relatively close to home? Or some of the shots -- by Studio460, if I remember correctly -- that were a mockup of an aircraft interior done in his living room?

Call me a silly bastard, but I think if you took a crappy photographer from Podunk and plunked him down in Venice, he'd still take crappy photos. If, on the other hand, you have a phenomenal photographer who happens to be agoraphobic, dollars to doughnuts she's going to find some cool way to represent the stuff in her living room. :)

But, playing Devil's advocate for a minute, how far is far enough? Speaking for myself, I've found that a quick drive down the Turnpike, or into New York, can be enough to get the creative juices going if I'm getting a bit worn out by my usual haunts. Would I give my eye teeth to shoot in Dublin, Kyoto, or Buenos Aires? Sure. But part of the challenge, and the fun, of this -- at least for me -- is trying to see the same things I see day in and day out from a bit different perspective.

Location, for a lot of AMAZING landscape shots, is location dependent.

Sure an awesome photographer can make the mundane exhilarating, but there's a reason Ansel Adams didn't just take pictures of his back yard. . .he traveled "a little bit" .. .

For portraits/weddings/etc., I'm torn - the background is usually not as important, and honestly, the coolest shots are contingent on the surrounding architecture that can be found virtually anywhere; take for instance this couple, simple shot, simple back drop, captured their emotions:

Could've taken it anywhere (although I was in central park, but still). . .

A shot in a less "cool" place, random park in CT. . .once again, emotion was from their body language than location:

What kind of sports do you do that you don't travel? Like I said I do shoot sports and I do travel a lot. A good friend of mine is a wedding photographer and she travels all over. Yes you can be a good photographer and take great pictures of flowers, cats and your kids but to really make a living you are going to have to do some traveling to get great shots. Joe McNally, Chase Jarvis, Jim Reed, Bob Krist and so many others didn't make names for themselves by driving around their neighborhood shooting macros. You've got to be willing to travel.

Even if you own a small town studio you have to be willing to go out and market yourself in other areas.

I think it can be hard to see good images in areas that you are overly accustom to. That may be why travel photography can be more interesting as a photographer. That being said, I agree with the general consensus that you do not have to travel to take good photos.

So, I purchased a 50 1.4 lens just prior to a trip to the far east. I told a friend of mine that I wanted it to take good portraits with great bokeh on that trip. His response: "ah, you want to blur out the backgrounds on travel shots...great idea" So, I did have in mind nicely blurred street images that imparted the feeling of the cities I was in (the lights, the outlines of street vendor carts, etc.), but the irony wasn't lost on me.

Heck, if you are a portrait photographer, you just need some trees and good outdoor light to take a photo.

No, I don't think you need to travel to be a good photographer. I think it's just more fun that way.

As a sports photographer I do a lot of traveling. I don't think I would learn much and my portfolio wouldn't be as interesting if I only shot local events. If you want to make a living from photography then you are going to have to do a lot of traveling. Isn't one of the biggest reasons people buy a new camera is because they are going on an important trip or vacation?

On another site I often go to is a gentleman that takes some of the best bird photos I have seen. He 80+ years old and does it all from inside the house thru a window or in the back yard in a blind. Not much travel there.

While I agree most good photography comes from travel (I do it all over the LA area) you can get a fine portfolio from your own home especially if you have a macro lens or a knack for food or some other "indoor" or confined subject.